A Russian beauty queen and actress at the centre of a £6 million divorce battle at the Royal Courts of Justice in London has outlined her plans to secure her financial future: find new husband. Ekaterina Parfenova, who is seeking a multi-million pound settlement from her estranged husband Richard Fields, an American lawyer, said she had no plans to work but is a “very good wife” and hopes to remarry.

She is vying for a £2.6 million share of their estimated £6 million assets plus an annual payout of up to £750,000. That would include £75,000 a year for holidays and mortgage payments on a £5.5 million flat near Kensington Palace.

Of course, it's hard to feel too sorry for the guy. She's soon to be ex-wife Number Six.

Meanwhile in the unending chick-crack that is the Daily Mail sidebar, 38-year-old Robin Thicke is cavorting about on the beach with his 20-year-old girlfriend. He seems to have his life slightly better figured out.

A Russian beauty queen and actress at the centre of a £6 million divorce battle at the Royal Courts of Justice in London has outlined her plans to secure her financial future: find new husband. Ekaterina Parfenova, who is seeking a multi-million pound settlement from her estranged husband Richard Fields, an American lawyer, said she had no plans to work, but is a "vdry good wife" and plans to remarry.

The maddening tragedy here is that despite the fact that this gold-digging whore has made her intentions clear for all the world to see, there is still some clueless, desparate, thirsty delta/gamma shithead out there somewhere who will gladly "put a ring on it."

Meanwhile in the unending chick-crack that is the Daily Mail sidebar, 38-year-old Robin Thicke is cavorting about on the beach with his 20-year-old girlfriend. He seems to have his life slightly better figured out.

I remember the poo that feminists threw at him about "Blurred Lines". The lyrics are quintessentially Alpha. (Not really Sigma, although they do have some contempt for Gamma niceguy behavior.)

The guy has 6 million pounds in assets, she wants 2.6 mil of it, plus 3/4 of a million pounds in annual alimony?

Even under the most batshit insane divorce legislation, how on Earth do you justify that? Wwas she was actually doing 100% of the work in his law practice and he spent all of his time drinking martinis at the beach?

"That's the type of woman you don't marry...but to figure that out you have to judge her character instead of ranking her based off her looks."

Earl, did you really just crawl out from under a rock? ALL women marry more for resources than for the relationship, its their nature based on evolutionary biology!

Look for the parable of the Scorpion and the Frog. Maybe that will give you a huge clue about this.

The basic man/woman contract, that of monogamous marriage, even as sanctified by God, is a trade of the man's commitment and resources for the woman's sexuality. That's all women can offer in this most basic of transactions. Remember, the reason God gave women vaginas was so that men would bother to talk to them! Oh, and while you're at it, go re-read Genesis.

Women marrying does the resources is a plus for civilization under Marriage 1.0. It gave men incentive to produce, women and incentive to value and reward a man's character and efforts.

However, this equation changed under Marriage 2.0. A woman no longer has to remain a wife to obtain the benefits of a husband. Why it is so shocking that men no longer want to step up their efforts when doing so costs them the rewards is beyond me.

Marriage to a rich chick like that might be rather fun. At 42 she's far from ideal, which is why young mistresses would be must-have additions.

One reason older women have a difficult time in the dating market is because they live for decades and everyone knows it. Being married to an ugly, infertile woman for 40 years absolutely requires "wife goggles".

Earl's a Nice Guy (and I mean that sincerely, not as a jab), so he often still frames things in terms of Good Girls and Bad Girls, where the key is to find a Good Girl who isn't subject to these issues. That sounds nice: just find the right girl, and you won't have to fear frivorce or worry about "gaming" her or any of that stuff -- just pick a Good one, and enjoy the rest of your life together. But there aren't any Good Girls (and not that many true Bad Girls). There are just Girls. Some certainly live more virtuously than others, but all are subject to the same temptations and urges.

The good/bad girl viewpoint can send the Nice Guy on an endless quest to find the one Good Girl needle in the haystack, and every time he thinks he finds her, he ends up getting burned when she turns out to have feet of clay. If he's a Beta or Delta, he may dump one after another in his quest for the perfect Good Girl who would never hurt him. If he's a Gamma, he'll glom onto the first one who's willing, telling himself she's a Good Girl, but then get his heart crushed when his perfect princess dumps him for being a sap.

When you see a woman who is subject to her husband and happy, that's not because she was lucky enough to be born without a hypergamy gland or a shit-test gland. She's doing it despite having those things. With superior character and upbringing, she's keeping that part of herself under control. You can't find a woman who doesn't suffer from female weaknesses, but you might find one who can overcome them.

Earl's a Nice Guy (and I mean that sincerely, not as a jab), so he often still frames things in terms of Good Girls and Bad Girls, where the key is to find a Good Girl who isn't subject to these issues.

Yeah, I'd rule Earl a recovering Gamma who still has to learn a few things.

As stated in Genesis, a wife craves the dominion of her husband. If he doesn't provide dominion, namely by being a weak AFC, she'll leave him (or want to leave him, if she's either ugly or Christian enough).

These days, they act as if they'll all live to 125.

Or, if they're still hot, they forget that they'll be essentially walking dead in a decade or so. If I was God, I'd engineer women to die twenty years after they have their last child, or at 45, whichever comes later, personally.

>I understand it's easy to feel like women of good character don't exist if you haven't seen any. Rest assured, they do exist.

Do you understand that it's easy to observe that communities of good character don't exist?

And that this means your assurance is femelitist white-knighting?

That's because it doesn't matter whether women of "good" character exist or not. The character of the communities on the other side of the marriage contract from both them and their husbands isn't good enough for men to keep committing, regardless of how "good" the wives' character is.

LBF, they used to be good for the more generalized caregiving in their communities. Food drives, babysitting, church and other community "socials", outreach to the poor and unlucky, etc. . .a whole host of activities that have since been outsourced to the State, with the corresponding detriments to community stability.

I'm sure there's a dystopian sci-fi story around somewhere that deals with female life expectancy = 25.

Maybe a Logan's Run [Jessica's Run? Tiffany's Run? Brittany's Run?] set in the near future, where young women only find safety, truth, and immortality by rejecting the lies of the "Feminist Sanctuary" and bonding with a man snd having his children?